☹️
At the end of the day, the pilots screwed up and entered the gauntlet of the storm systems, which cost a family and their friend's lives. People can debate DEI or not.
People can talk about the "heroics" of the co-pilot's communications... but this wouldn't have happened if they had fully diverted away from the storm system, instead of trying to cut through a corridor to the Bahamas.
The arrogance of the flight crew to think that a Learjet, known for ice-related aerodynamic problems, can handle a Floridian unpredictable mess of storms is just crazy. Storms grow rapidly inside the system and can easily tear a plane like a Learjet apart. As soon as she said "clear light ice," that was already inching close to disaster... at that point it should have been a clear emergency scenario even before entering the final storm cell.
If they had followed the rule of maintaining at least 20 miles from the storm's edge, they could have been fine, just arrived late.
The male pilot had non-continuous employment, and his actual total experience is questionable. The female young co-pilot was only 20... depth of experience is just not a "thing" at that age.
That decision to enter that storm system is what killed innocent lives, and no amount of "glazing" the female pilot, or blaming the male pilot, changes that. It was still a joint decision by the flight crew.
28
Sad
Karen Swisher makes ten million dollars a year from tech companies advertising on her podcast and has the ears of powerful Democrats
She's using that platform, paid for by the technology industry, to encourage the prosecution of our greatest entrepreneurs and patriots.
Prof. G encouraged their listeners to "resist and unsubscribe" from all of the great technology companies in America, including Uber, Netflix, Salesforce, Amazon Prime, Google, Meta, and Apple!!!
These technology companies are advertising on the podcast that is actively encouraging the demise of tech products and entrepreneurs! 🤦🤦🤦😂😂😂😂
15
RickD retweeted
David Friedberg: We’ve Lost the Plot on Immigration
“If you're providing social services to an immigrant population, then that's not necessarily a productive immigrant population in terms of being able to contribute to growing the economy and supporting civil society.
But if a population of immigrants come in and they're productive, meaning they can get jobs and they can work, and they can support themselves, that means they're adding something positive to the economy, to the civil society, and that is the sort of selection criteria that needs to take place.
So that's a simple framework for determining whether or not you should do this, and an easy way to solve it is get rid of social services for immigrants.
As soon as you get rid of social services for immigrants, then you self-select into the right population that's going to come in.
It's not about assimilating to society. It's about sharing the values of what makes the United States, the United States.
The values of, what do we actually care about, what are the principles that we all share as a civil society of the United States or a civil society of France, is a screening criteria that seems to have been thrown out the window.”
Jason:
“Do you believe in Freedom of speech? Do you believe in the Second Amendment?”
Friedberg:
“Do you believe that women are equal to men?
Do you believe that you should work for your money as opposed to take it from the government?
Do you believe in your individual rights?
Is your church paramount to the government and the laws of the state?
And do you believe that other people have rights that you don't get to trample on?
Those are the sorts of things that are, in many cases, counter to the cultural, religious, and other traditional beliefs of certain populations that end up causing the damage in the West, and I think that it's been kind of completely lost in the process.”
RickD retweeted
There are a few things in life you should know with 100% certainty:
• Your name.
• Your birthday.
• Whether you married your brother.
You can’t own enough $SPCX
A retired NASA engineer who had worked on the Space Shuttle program for 25 years was hired by SpaceX at age 62. He described the first week as the most disorienting experience of his professional life.
At NASA, a design change required 3 meetings, 2 committees, a review board, and 6 to 18 months of documentation. At SpaceX, his new supervisor said "if it works, build it. If it doesn't, change it by Friday."
He sat at his desk after the first day and called his wife. He told her he felt like a man who had been swimming with ankle weights for 25 years and someone just cut them off. He could move. He could decide. He could build something in the morning and test it in the afternoon. The constraint that he had accepted as the nature of aerospace engineering turned out to be the nature of bureaucracy.
Within 6 months he had contributed to more design iterations than he had completed in his last 5 years at NASA. Not because he was working harder. Because the time between having an idea and testing the idea collapsed from months to hours. The same brain. The same knowledge. A different operating system.
He described a specific moment where he proposed a modification to a Raptor engine component. At NASA, the proposal would have entered a queue. At SpaceX, the modification was machined by the end of the day and tested by the following morning. He watched his idea become a physical object in 18 hours. At NASA, 18 hours would not have been enough to schedule the first meeting to discuss whether to schedule a meeting.
He told an interviewer: "I didn't get smarter when I went to SpaceX. I got faster. The intelligence was always there. The system was in the way."
The difference between SpaceX and NASA is not talent. NASA has extraordinary talent. The difference is the time between a thought and a test. SpaceX compresses it. NASA elongates it. The same engineer produces 10x more at SpaceX than at NASA because the bottleneck was never the engineer. It was the meetings about the meetings about the work.
45
This is the way. Let’s go Dodgers and Miguel!
Meet Miguel Rojas.
He studied all 100 citizenship questions. He wanted no special treatment because he’s a professional baseball player. And when he passed, he said he was prouder of that perfect score than his World Series home run.
What stood out to me most was his gratitude. He talked about America opening its doors to him 21 years ago and said he’s never taken that opportunity for granted.
Preparation. Respect for the process. Gratitude for the country that gave you an opportunity. Wanting to contribute and be judged by your character, not your status.
1
16
Hmmm, what if Bill is right? 🤔
The presumption that the Fed raising short-term rates reduces inflation is predicated on the belief that higher rates reduce demand and investment.
But what if higher rates don’t reduce demand and investment because the demand for intelligence and energy is unaffected by higher rates because winning the race for super intelligence has a near infinite ROI and the demand for compute will remain incalculable.
Why won’t higher rates at this unique moment in history therefore lead to more inflation as interest costs are embedded in everything?
And the problem is compounded as the more the Fed raises rates, the more inflation we will have and the more the Fed will need to raise rates further and so on.
But what if the old models don’t apply to the current paradigm and the Fed is wrong?
I think the Fed might have just made a mistake. Am I right or am I wrong?
19
Hilarious!
Replying to @JesseBWatters @Jason
🤣 it’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine 🎶 Great job! @Jason
1
16
RickD retweeted
I'm not of fan of regulation for two reasons - 1) its hard to get right, and 2) its highly susceptible to regulatory capture. That said, if we insist on doing it, we should try to get it correct.
As "safety" seems is the primary goal of this AI regulation exercise, I wanted to share that I recently went deep on both the 737 Max (2 crashes) and Fukushima accidents. In both cases, the investigations led to a conclusion that "regulatory capture" was the EXACT failure that led to both safety incidents. Boeing/FAA and Tepco/NISA.
As a result, with safety as the #1 goal, the regulator MUST BE someone with authority and accountability "over" the regulated company. The idea that it could be a friendly third party with lots of cross-relationships is structurally broken idea. Ask Mr. Kiyoshi Kurokawa.
If we insist on doing this the regulator (1) needs to be 100% independent, 2) the "tests" and "procedures" need to come for the regulator not the company, and (3) the regulator needs to understand their responsibility is to the American people. They need to feel the authority over the regulated company and the responsibility to the nation.
It's imperative. Or it will fail.
Sad but true
The West, 25 Years After 9/11, Has Failed To Defeat Islamic Terrorism
The spirit, ideology, and threat Bin Laden represented is alive and finding ways to attack across the globe.
gingrich360.net/p/the-west-2…
1
18






















